Secrets of the Legal Industry Part 3 of 3

[Music] All right, all right. Uh, just before we went to our lunch break, I told you about being called by some people from Arizona, and they had a $6.8 million judgment against them, and they were in a terrible fix and asked if I could help. And I speculated that I could, but I didn't really know whether I could or not. I was kind of gambling on this would be one of those usual lawyer mess-ups, like they usually do, that there'd be something in there that would give me a chance to attack it.

And these people, again, this is a real deal. They were sued, and the circumstances in this suit is they belong to a, one of these Cooperative Property Owners organizations out there where they were living, lived in another state, and then they'd come down to live in Arizona where it's warm and sunshiny and winter. And they had this property and discovered that the promoters of this property were embezzling funds and doing a lot of other things that were wrong. And so they approached the situation. And one of the things that they did was they actually put out, uh, what was called a handbill to identify this illegal activity. And they didn't succeed in getting any kind of criminal activity charges going against these people, but the promoters did sue them for, um, maligning their reputation.

And, uh, these folks in Arizona were acquainted with, uh, the work of, uh, somebody that's, I guess you'd call, highly associated with the Patriot movement. And so this person did the paperwork for him. And this is what it looks like. And it goes, it goes back where I started at the very beginning. And I said, we talked about the fringe around the flag. See, this guy's got a nice little flag on here, and I don't know what this other graphic is on here for. And for some reason, everything is in all capital letters. Bunch of it's underlined. Back and a lot of other stuff.

And, and I'm here to tell you that it didn't work. It didn't work to make those claims about what's associated with what I call the fringed flag arguments. In fact, this guy had actually told him, when you go into a hearing, don't admit that you're the person named in this suit. When they ask you what your name is, you say that your name is John Sten Truman, comma, do. And then when they say, well, is this you? He says, repeat yourself. Just repeat it. That's what the people did. They went into a hearing and they did that to a judge. And they hate this judge, but in reading the minutes of the hearing, I don't think that they should really hate the judge. But of course, I can't see the, the, uh, facial ticks, the expressions, I can't hear the tone of voice. I don't know. Maybe it's really brack with them. I don't know.

But what I saw was a judge that tried and begged these people to get away from this stuff. Get away from that. Get away from that. Talk to me. They wouldn't testify. They said, we stand on our pleadings. Will you have any questions for the other side? We stand on our pleadings. Well, are you going to deny that you did these things? We stand on our pleadings. And they said they were standing on their pleadings. They were standing on, and my goodness, that's thick. There's a bunch of pages in that. This is what they were standing on. I'm not going to read it because to me, it's gobbledegook. And that resulted in a judgment against them of $6.8 million.

And that's what I say is, if you, if you're out there near your goal and you feel a tug, it may be that tether of misinformation. They want to be careful about this kind of stuff. And when, when they talk to this guy and say, well, you know, we did what you told us and it didn't work. Don't worry about it. I'm going to do this. And what is this? This is their suit in the World Court against the individuals that got the judgment against them, that is allegedly worth $700 million.

And so as I conversed with these people, and as I looked at their papers, one of the things that they said is, oh, by the way, can you help us, uh, file this judgment lien in Arizona? And I said, no, no, no, no, don't do that. Don't do that. Let me do some investigation because I don't know about Arizona, but in Oklahoma, you do that, you're going to jail.

Well, I was able to get to the, the, uh, World Court of Justice, which is not hard to do. And strangely enough, to try to investigate this $700 million judgment that these people thought they had, you know, none of their names are even there. Of course, it wouldn't be correct anyway, because there's nothing at the World Court of Justice that tells me that I can sue you in the World Court. Nothing that informs me that I can do that. There. But that's what, that's what going back to early in our discussion this morning, we need to be free of the tether of misinformation because it'll get you clobbered. And, and in the case of these people with a judgment of $6.8 million.

So we set that aside and then we start to work this case and look at the record and see what was done and what wasn't done. And we look for the mistakes that I say that attorneys often make. And, uh, I, I hope as I'm telling this story that you're kind of, um, uh, relating to two things. One is what you may have heard in seminars, read in books about courts and jurisdiction and all of this stuff. And the other is, um, what it must feel like to be these people there. Now, their lives are ruined. But I don't look at a situation is as hopeless. On its surface, I look for something that I can use.

Now, then the first thing I did was I went, where, where do we go? We go to the annotated statutes and I started looking and reading in the annotated statutes. And of course, this is what those critters look like. And I started looking for holdings that I was going to use to amount a collateral attack because I had read the, um, minutes, not of the trial, because there wasn't a trial, it was a summary judgment, but I had read the minutes of the hearing where the judge said, okay, I've already given them their judgment. Now I'm going to decide how much you people are going to get clobbered with. And that was the hearing where these people were saying things like, I'm John Colen Truman, commodo, and I stand on the pleadings and that sort of stuff.

And one of the things that I noticed that in the actual minutes of that, the court ruled and determined that they were jointly and severally liable. Now, there are eight people on the receiving end of this deal. Eight people were then going to be destroyed because no matter who had what, they were going to come after all eight of them. Now, when I read the annotated, I made an interesting discovery. Joint and several liability in Arizona has been abolished. You can't have a joint and several liability judgment against somebody in Arizona. When you have a judgment against multiple parties, the judge has to actually issue a separate judgment for each plaintiff and each defendant, apportioning exactly what each damages are to be paid. So we immediately have a challenge to what subject matter jurisdiction. The judge did not have authority to clobber these eight people with this joint and several liability. But he doesn't exist. Does not exist. So that's one angle, along with the fact that, um, in this summary judgment, none of them got notice of it either, which is a major failing. So that enables me to attack this judgment.

And so one of the materials that you have is that actual petition. Mark, would you like to help me read this? Okay, this is a petition to vacate a void judgment. Melvin W. Citizen, Elizabeth M. Citizen, and so forth, hereinafter identified as plaintiffs, petition this court under authority of Arizona Civil Procedure and the common law doctrines established in American Credit Bureau versus Pima County for vacation of a void judgment in case number CV 92663, a copy of which is attached. The face of the record shows that the plaintiffs in the above-styled cause were not in receipt of notice of complainants motion for summary judgment in case CV 9902663, had no means to know a motion for summary judgment or the hearing conducted to determine liability. The plaintiffs were deprived of procedural due process rights. The clear face of the record shows that the court did not have jurisdiction over the parties. A procedural due process requisite for determining liability, jurisdiction of parties and subject matter is essential to a valid judgment, and court must have jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment. Vaness versus Superior Court of the State in and for Maricopa County. A judgment is void on its face and is subject to collateral attack unless court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, of the persons involved in the litigation, and to render the particular judgment given. Hulford versus Industrial Commission. Trial court had no jurisdiction over person of defendant who was never served with summons and complaint, who never appeared in the declaratory judgment action, and who only filed notice requesting copies of all minute entries and documents long after trial. Therefore, judgment as to such defendant was void. American National Fire Insurance and versus Esquire Labs of Arizona. Once existence of personal jurisdiction is appropriately challenged, party asserting jurisdiction has burden of establishing it. Lee Coming Division of Avco versus Superior Court of Maricopa County. The complainant action to determine liability was not procedurally or substantively a provisional remedy. Before any provisional remedy shall issue, the party seeking such remedy shall establish with particularity by affidavit to the court's satisfaction sufficient facts supporting the party's claim and establish that one of the requirements of subsection A of statute authorizing provisional remedies has been met, and that such party will file such other pleadings or affidavit as required by law as a prerequisite to the issuance of any provisional remedy sought. See Arizona Civil Procedures. The court in case CV 9902663 wanted subject matter jurisdiction to find Melvin W. Citizen, Elizabeth M. Citizen, so forth, severally liable. The court in case CV 92663 made no inquiry into individual culpability of each respondent, Melvin W. Citizen, Elizabeth M. Citizen, and so forth. The court failed to apportion degrees of fault to Melvin W. Citizen, Elizabeth M. Citizen, and so forth. The court in CV 9902663 made no finding that any party was responsible for the fault of another party. Joint and several liability has been abolished in Arizona, accepting where degrees of fault have been apportioned. Each defendant is liable only for the amount of the damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportionate, in direct proportion to the defendant's percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be entered against the defendant for that amount. To determine the amount of judgment to be entered against each defendant, the trier of fact, I'm sorry, the trier of fact shall multiply the total amount of damages recoverable by the plaintiff by the percentage of each defendant's fault, and that amount is the maximum recoverable against the defendant. The relative degree of fault of the claimant and the relative degrees of fault of all defendants and non-parties shall be determined and apportioned as a whole at one time by the trier of fact. If two or more claimants have independent claims, a separate determination and apportionment of the relative degrees of fault of the respective parties and the non-parties at fault shall be made with respect to each of the independent claims. The liability of each defendant is, uh, several only and is not joint. Abolition of the joint and several liability applies to all actions depending on the effective date of the act in Arizona. Tort users are to pay for the damages that they cause, but no more. Each defendant is liable only for the amount of damages allocated to the defendant's percentage of fault. Pulley versus National Hole-in-One Association. In an indivisible injury case, the fact finder is to compute the total amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff and the percentage of fault of each tortfeasor. Multiplying the first figure by the second gives the maximum recoverable against each tortfeasor. Larson versus Nissan Motor Corporation, uh, review denied. The court is required to allocate responsibility among all parties who cause the injury, with each such party's liability several, but not joint, but not joint. To cure the deep pocket problem of the defendant. Piner versus Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa. The trier must determine and apportion all to degrees of fault of all parties and non-parties. Zurin by and through Zurin versus Ford Motor Company, uh, review was granted. Let's see, I think that's part of the citation. The court must apportion fault between all wrongdoers. Hutton versus City of Phoenix. A judgment is void on its face and is subject to collateral attack unless the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, of the persons involved in the litigation, and to render the particular judgment given. Haford versus Industrial Commission. A court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter. If it has not jurisdiction, a court's judgment may be collaterally attacked. Vargas versus Greer. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter can be raised at any time. Versus Kelly versus Kelly. A jury's determination that Melvin W. Citizen and so forth were not in receipt of notice prior to the hearing to determine liability, and/or the court in court, excuse me, in CV 9902663 did not apportion damages among Melvin W. Citizen and so forth justly. This justly requires vacating the judgment in case CV 92663, together with the award of costs and damages for any taking of the money or property from Melvin W. Citizen, Elizabeth M. Citizen, and so forth, for the time spent litigating. And then there's an affidavit. A sample of an affidavit attached to you. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate that.

Is it all there? Isn't it just pretty much a, a primer, a how-to on vacating a void judgment? And where did it come from? Did it come from the authority? The annotated authority? Did we empower the court to act? Did we state the court's authority to act right up here when we started out? Did we tell the judge, here's where you have authority to act? They had one potential, or they have one potential defense, and that is to say that this original summary judgment was a provisional action. No, no, I opened that gate and I closed it. The language is in there where I said this was not a provisional remedy. So don't go there. Don't argue that it was not a provisional remedy. And it was not a provisional remedy for these reasons. It's all in the pleadings. So there's kind of a how-to. And I think there's also a how-not-to. Where in the world did this stuff come from anyway? But haven't we, who were in and associated with the Patriot movement, seen tons of this? Haven't we? What happens when you use it? $6.8 million.

I think Mr. Cam, how, question I have is, you say that when you get a case like this, I call you up on the phone, that you then go to that state's annotated code. How do you know what to look for in the code so that you can determine that you're C? Okay, they, the question is, um, uh, what to look for in a, in a respective state's annotated statutes that will make that particular thing void. And, uh, I was asked during the break if this is something that I made up. And I did, kind of sort of. But the law of voids, which I discovered in 1993, is one of, it's a, it's a legal doctrine. I haven't found any place that it doesn't exist. And it's kind of a, uh, last defense for people under our Constitution, as it is interpreted by our Supreme Courts, to defend their property interests. We are a country that by design and intent held the ability to own property as sacred. Do we all agree? But there's been a lot of damage to that ideal. But we can see that surviving for more than 200 years is still a provisional remedy for us to get our property back when it was wrongfully taken, when the other side didn't follow the rules. When I go to a state, I know that I can look, almost always, in the index under voids, void judgments, judgments void, uh, set aside judgment. There is, there's always going to be a way of finding that. It isn't necessarily going to be easy, but it's so far, it's always been there. And again, what you're going to do is you're going to be keyed to that state authority for vacating judgments. You're going to have in the annotated, just like this, you're going to have a whole bunch of holdings. And like I said, I don't have the time, the interest, the energy, or the enthusiasm to go read every one of those cases. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to look for the holdings that are going to enable me to pick apart the other side's case. And then there are going to be some selected cases that I'm going to get. But I'm interested in the logic of why that case was wrong. This one, they really kind of made it easy for me. But yes, you go to the state annotated statutes. Oklahoma rates fairly high on the list as far as a person's ability to get relief of a void judgment.

Well, now when you go to those statutes, statutes on foreclosures, would you, would you have a key there to look under foreclosures, or would you look under property? Or is there some way to go, like the guy with the, you went to that, how would you find the subject IED to look up for the case you wanted to look up, whether it was on or whether it was on the county, whether it was on somebody else? The subject, I guess, is a way to check that out. Okay, let me repeat that verbatim. Let me tell you about a philosophy that I have in what I do. Ulysses S. Grant, this is probably paraphrasing terribly, but when asked about his theory of war, said, you find the enemy and you hit him with everything you've got, and you keep on him until you destroy them. So in response to your question, I'll look at all of those. I'll look at everything. I'll look at anything that could give me any leverage at all. I'm going to look in the annotated to see if it leads me to where I can actually start out a paragraph heading with a number on it and say something from any angle. So I'll look under foreclosures because all of this knits together. You have all these actions out here in all these different directions, but they're all going to be clustered under the law or doctrine of voids because they all have to have the same parameters to be a valid judgment. Doesn't matter whether it was a foreclosure or whether it was a criminal case or whatever it was. If you go back and you look at that court record, it had to have a, a four-legged table to stand on. So I'll attack everything. I'll attack it from any angle I can think of. Is that a sufficient answer?

Well, I just thought I went to the annotated. I have to read all of those annotated things in there, or would there be a subject I could go to, or are they all pertain to what I might? Them all. They're under headings. They're very well, they're under headings and they're very well organized. That's what I want. For example, in certain states, if you look under their annotated statutes under vacating a void judgment, you'll actually see, you know, if this was a foreclosure action, here's your case law. That's what I, if this was a divorce, here's, here's the, you know, it's under headings. The, the, the annotated statutes are really a marvelous resource for two reasons. First of all, because they, they represent such a tremendous economy in time. And secondly, because they're an education. Mark Mays and I met at the Oklahoma City University Library just about, um, 54 weeks ago, and we got the Oklahoma State annotated on Oklahoma 121038 and we started reading that. And Mark, who has had some formal legal background training, I think it's safe to say that this was kind of like going to a couple of semesters of school, wasn't it? It was that informative because Mark, like we all were at some point in time, were drawn into this notion that this is all so terribly complex and you can't possibly do this, you can't understand this, you're not an attorney. I mean, look at all these millions of law books. How many of those have you read? Do I really need to read if you can get your hands on the annotated? But, uh, it's not going to be readily available on the internet anytime soon because, and it's not because of the publisher rights in it, it's because once that's right, once you get your hands on that, you beat them at their own game. You beat them at their own game. It's just like, um, one of the lines from, um, I've got an autobiography, not I've got a biography of, uh, General George S. Patton Jr. And that biography confirms that many of the things that were attributable to General Patton as having said, he really, really did say those things. He really did say those things. Before his battle in the desert against, um, Rommel, he got Rommel's book. He wanted to know how Rommel fought. Well, see, when you have those annotated, now you know how the system works. You know how they think. You're right to the heart of the matter there. And after Patton's tank army, his tank corps, defeated Rommel's, as he watched the, uh, the German, uh, tank corps disintegrating, he said, Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book. In other words, I found out how you think. I know what, I know how you think. I know what your game plan is. That's what the annotated will do for you.

Richard, do you know where we can get the, uh, the question is, where can you get the an? And the annotated are available on CD at a cost of, the last time I priced them, $1,800. So anybody with a CD burner doesn't mind. I never said that. Yeah, yeah. Uh, almost exactly the same according to the Bible. Well, I would refer to the annotated statutes as, as the Bible of, of law. Yeah, because they're, they're what you can rely on. If they're not in the annotated statutes, you don't know whether you can rely on it, and you probably can't. Because as you walk through a law library and you see those hundreds of thousands of books, unless the cases in that book, those books actually appear in the annotated, at least as a, um, key reference, they're just philosophy of law. And that's one of the things that, in my opinion, is wrong with our law schools. They're not teaching people about law or how to practice law. They're teaching people philosophy of law. So consequently, you've got people coming out of law school and they can stand up here like I am, but they'll talk all day on Roe v. Wade. But ask them if they need to support a motion for summary judgment with an affidavit. They, huh? That's procedure. I don't know anything about procedure. I think, I think your question is, how do you, how do you reproduce an authority without, without violating copyright laws? And it's my understanding that as long as you get proper citing to that and you're not reproducing it commercially, then that's permissible. That's my understanding. If, if I'm wrong, I want somebody to tell me. But if, um, if I write anything, it's copyrighted at that moment, regardless of whether I file a copyright on it or not. That's the law. Okay. Now, if you take that, you can reproduce it as long as you don't reproduce it commercially, as long as you say, well, here's who said that. I know that, um, I've collected, uh, books for many, many years. I enjoy reading. And in the last few years, I've noticed a trend in publishing that as you read a book now, even if it's, um, even if it's something that is, uh, about halfway fiction, where it talks about subject matter that's published, you'll see a footnote in the back of the book. You will see the documentation of that. So consequently, 400-page books, about 100 pages of the actual credits for that particular material. So, uh, I don't have any reticence about citing and quoting there. I don't believe that I will be infringing of copyright laws for those reasons. Plus, they do it too.

Do you have any opinion as to what authorizes? Don't know. I don't know. To me, um, there are a lot of, uh, what I call fringed flag arguments. Now, when you hear me talk like this, you probably think that I'm being derogatory. Not really, because I agree. I agree. I quite agree that it's inappropriate to put gold fringe around that flag. I say that's wrong. My understanding. I say that's wrong. But that's not the point. That's not the point. The point is, if you get dragged off into arguing about that, you're never going to win. You're never going to win. What I would suggest, and I don't have it on the tip of my tongue, but maybe Mark does. There is a real lawyer that I respect and trust by the name of Larry Becraft. And he has a website where he goes into great detail about what I, what I call fringed flag arguments. And he does these with the same reverence for the real law that I do. He's taken time to explore all of those. You might find the answer to your question there. I don't know. Uh, I haven't taken the time, uh, to actually explore a lot of those because my conclusion is, particularly after seeing things like this, is just don't go there. Stay from those. Stay with what I know the law says can give me a win.

Richard, I, no, a real interesting, a request for attorney, and I was wondering if you might not award. Yeah, the, uh, the question is, why the reference in the pleadings for compensation for time spent litigating? And a reason for that goes back to my favorite judge, Judge Werner, who always awarded the prevailing litigant in his Little People's Court compensation for their time. And I think that every person is entitled to be compensated for their time. Do I have anybody that's been compensated for their time? Not yet. But it's just like the issue of assistance counsel. The time maybe hasn't been quite right for it. I've had people ask me, beg me, will you please go into court and stand up there beside me and present my case for me? And I say, no, unless you're willing to litigate that question through the Oklahoma Supreme Court to see whether I can or not. See, somebody is going to have to actually litigate the question to establish the law. And so far, mainly because of the, the rather emergency na, uh, nature of the things that I've dealt with, we haven't litigated the question. In other words, a person is threatened with some horrible judgment that's going to destroy them. Yeah, we ask to be compensated for their time. No, the judge doesn't give it. But, you know, they're free and they don't want to take the time and the money to litigate that question, particularly on assistance of counsel, because it would have to be done, um, I've forgotten the term for it, but it's an inter, it's an interlocutory. In other words, you would actually have to say, time out, we're going to take time out from litigation and we're going to ask the Supreme Court to rule and determine whether I can come in here and speak for you. And the situations that my friends have been involved in have been a little bit too compelling to play the game that way. I look forward to the day when somebody will have the luxury and time to litigate two questions: whether or not I can appear on behalf of somebody else if they really want me to, and the other is whether they can be compensated for their time. Now, they can be compensated for their time in a settlement, of course. But what I want is for the judge to say, okay, you spent X number of hours, I'm going to get you compensated because you did your own legal work. But they, they remain to be litigated questions. In other words, when I go to the de annotated, I haven't found any authority for them yet. So if it's there, it's well hidden. I, at the, let's see, it's called United States Code Annotated. And in each book, there seems to be a little white book pasted at the back of the book, and it's all new stuff that they're constantly adding. And sometimes there's three or four of these books. When you look at the index, the index, no, but it really doesn't have to because the index referenced the title. And so what I do, and what I recommend that you do, is go under your title first and read the authorities under the title. And then go to the, the back of the book, because I think you'll discover that 95, 98% of the time, there's no new law there. There are just new published authorities where they are further affirming the principles that are earlier in the book.

Do you go by the, the belief of, uh, that the latest court case that you have that supports what you're doing is the one that you want to use? Sort of. The one that I really want to use is the one that is nearest to the exact facts of the case that hasn't been reversed by a later authority. Because some of the, some of the really great authorities are, uh, really old. Trenzy versus Pagar was 40 years old, but it's good law. And if it's good law and it's still there, go ahead and cite that. Excuse me. Uh, the question is, uh, the question is, are authorities before 1936 recognized? I have repeatedly cited authorities that were earlier than that. As far as, um, uh, arguments about, uh, whether or not we're under martial law or other things like that, uh, probably ought to go to Mr. Becraft's site and pose the question there because I, I don't know. I haven't found anything that supports that. And see, that's the way about the, about the fringe around the flag or the expression of a person's name in all capital letters. We all, we hear those arguments. Look at my, you look at my pleadings. I don't put people's names in capital letters. I know it's wrong, but show me the court case where it has been fatal to a cause because somebody did that. Um, back to your question, you said all capitalization. We start out in statute with, you know, case, and then come, it's upper and lower case at a certain stage. And by the time you get to the court for litigation, everything's in capitalization. Um, do you have any particular, uh, thought or there any manual or anything that tells you how you do this? You bet there is. If you look, if you go into a law library, there is a Federal Book of Forms and there is a State Book of Forms. You want to file a lis pendens, you want to know how to file a lis pendens and get it correct, look in the book of forms. It'll tell you exactly how to do it. And I'm here to tell you that I bet you that most attorneys never go to the book of forms because they're no add-alls. And if you look in the book of forms, a lot of these things have been actually dispensed with. For example, you've probably seen many pleadings that start out, "Comes now." And C. It's not in the book of forms. The people that say, "Here's how to submit a proper form to the court," got rid of that kind of nonsense years ago. And yet you still see attorneys of, "Comes now," and the, "Whereas," and all that other stuff. Hey, I go to the source. Go to the forms book. Look at the forms book. The forms book will tell you exactly letter for letter how to complete that pleading properly. All you've got to do is insert the authorities and the facts.

Okay, I don't wish to, uh, take things off course here, but, uh, I have had some discussions with Mr. Becraft on some of his aggressive words against, uh, folks in the Patriot movement about gold fringe and issues of that sort. And I've had a chance to sit down at dinner with him and discuss this a couple of times. And, uh, uh, I kind of stated my position, which is, um, I can't have a judge telling me what are my unalienable rights. Um, is a judge the ultimate arbiter of my rights or not? And so what the question really is, is the judicial decisions that have come down, say, against gold fringe and nominal capitalization issues and so forth, were these clarifications of the law, or were these judges walking over the law? Um, I think in some cases that still has to be determined. But Mr. Becraft's point, which is a point for this meeting and so forth, is these things are not working. And people have not won using them. So, noble idea, correct idea or not, with all due respect, we better listen to Mr. Becraft. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, well said. And another, and another, uh, tag along with that. And then we're going to take a break about 45 minutes, isn't it, John? Okay, we're going to take a break. Uh, we have a meeting of couple of times a month. The Jacuz or organization is a due process club. We're not about issues, we're about due process. And somebody came as a guest to our last meeting that said something that I, I wish I'd have said. And the group was discussing some points about how we would do a certain thing. And he says, you know, a problem in the Patriot movement is you work so hard to win the battle, you lose the war. That was, I wish I'd have said that. But, but the point of it is, it's just like, um, I have heard that the last time that the Montana Freedman appeared in court, the judge took off his robe, removed the flags, and says, "Now, what's your problem?" You see, they had, they had worked so hard to win that little skirmish over the fringe around the flag that they lost big time. It's like these people were treading on the advice of somebody that told him all this stuff. I'm printing a little flag in the corner will protect you. I don't know. Got them clobbered. We're, we're going to take a break and we'll come back. And also, uh, when we come back, what we might do is change our format just a little bit. We'll only have, um, maybe about, uh, a little bit over an hour before we'll have to to end this marvelous party. It's been marvelous for me. But in that case, what, what would, what I'd like to do is when you want to ask a question, come up and get in the line before the microphone, ask on the microphone, and I'll try to answer it quickly. And if somebody has not had the opportunity to ask a question, let's give those people a chance to ask a question first. I got to take off back to the test. This is your personal. The I'm asking that document I'm going to send you, okay? Can only be read by you because I don't know. Okay. All right. Send it. Send it to this email address right there. We just got, we've just got an hour. We just got an hour and we'll be in jail if we don't leave. [Applause] [Music] [Laughter] Well, do it. Got an ID in it. Prob Eugene. All right. Uh, if, if anybody wants extra tapes, who remembers my middle name? All right. You can go to the Jacuz website. There will be an order form there that you can print out. If you put Luke on it, then it's available for the today's cost. I need to know. Make okay. All right. Just contact to the site. Um, who would like to ask a question that hasn't had a question answered? If you'll step up to the microphone, and then others, just step right in behind them. We'll try to to get as many questions answered as possible. If you have to step in front of Mark, don't worry about it. That's okay. Okay, getting back to the four legs. Uh-huh. Does a corporation qualify for? Only if an officer of that corporation appears and testifies. The corporation, in my opinion, can't. It goes back to a case law that's about 200 years old that a corporation is a fiction and jurisdiction cannot be established by fiction. And I think you have to have an officer of that corporation to have that fourth leg. That's my theory. Now, the question is, where does the 11th Amendment come in as far as being able to sue a state? As far as him being able to sue me? As far as the state being able to sue you? The state, or him, under what authority in law? R, uh, so not you have been sued by the state of Texas, Colorado, tax case, doesn't matter. It's criminal. Okay. They have to have their competent witness. What they have to have their competent witness. Somebody has to complain. Who's complaining? The state is. Even if it's the people of Colorado, there has to be a witness that swears out the complaint. Somebody has to say, I was injured, I was harmed. Yeah. Okay. What about Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, where the state is a party? The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction. I'm of the opinion, there still has to be a complaining party. You mean there has to be a plaintiff? There has to be a complaining party. There has to be somebody that's injured. Who's injured? Who's injured here? And see, there's a problem in our so-called criminal justice system because we have all these task forces that go out and they go after people as task force. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Time out. Who, who is injured here? I mean, who, who is injured here? And it's something that is probably already settled in the law, but it's being ignored. And so the rich result would be to take a case like yours and take it through the appeals, across the Criminal Court of Appeals on that very point of where does the government get its authority to put together a task force on drugs and go out and in search? Wait, wait, wait a minute. Who was the injured party here? You injured the state? I don't think so. And if you, or somebody that you know of, has been subjected to a criminal charge where it's the state against you, but there is no witness of an actual crime being committed, nobody complaining, I think it's one that I would like to be my inaugural appeal to a criminal, Criminal Court of Appeals on that basis of, wait a minute here, you've got all these government task forces out here. Who is the person that's injured? And it's, and it's where our criminal justice system has gone badly awry because there are many reported crimes. I've had crimes committed against me. Probably most of the rest of you have. Getting back, does a corporation qualify as an injured party? In my opinion, no. In my opinion, no. And come on up behind if you have a question and you've not had a chance to ask a question. My question would be that what we're dealing with, it seems to me, is a presumption of law. This is the reason why they're able to to do what they're doing, because they presume for some reason that they have, uh, legal authority to create a, you know, drug task force or whatever it might be. But, uh, uh, to give an an instance that right now, this is just, I don't know if anybody's ever fought one of these parking tickets or not, but anyway, asking the question that, where do you get your, uh, you presume that I was the person who parked the vehicle there? Where is the evidence? Who was the witness who actually saw? Where is the, where's the damage? You know, who did I injure? So I asked the question, is this, is this a C? I mean, is this a criminal offense or a civil? Well, I finally got an answer saying, well, it's criminal. Well, who did I injure then? So where do you get your jurisdiction? That presumption is a crime. Well, they sent me back a city ordinance, a presumption ordinance, that it is presumed that because you're a registered vehicle owner, that you are the person who parked the car there. So we haven't got that issue resolved yet. But anyway, I haven't had an arrest warrant sent out for me yet. But my question is, uh, where do we stop the presumption of law that they seemingly, uh, believe that they have? Because, you know, my, the other thing I had was a not stop, not having a driver's license. Then my was this, well, you, your presumption of law is different than my presumption of law. But yet I'm exercising my right and I get arrested for it. But that's my question. Presumption of law. They, these things, these things are like the, uh, assistance of counsel, and they're like compensation for time while litigating. These are probably issues of first impression. And what you do is you take somebody that has experience in filing appeals, and I've actually won two appeals before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. And you take that issue and you take it up to those folks and you ask them for a decision on them. And it is probably an issue of first impression, which means that they don't have to hear it, but they're almost compelled to hear it. But what has to happen is somebody like yourself is going to have to find out what the law is because right now we don't know, do we? Because the Supreme Court has not told us what the law is. So we can look it up in the state annotated. If you'll look under, uh, uh, BSB State, you will find authority to get vacated a civil, I mean, not a civil, but a municipal court judgment against you where there was no witness and appearance. Okay, that's the first step. The next step is to extend that to these other questions that you're asking. But they're going to have to go to the body that tells us what the laws mean. But, um, when you, or somebody has one like that, the thing to do is get it into the appeals process and see if you can make law. Okay. Um, in my case, the IRS had a lien against my husband. They sold the property. They paid me for half of the pro, gave me half of the proceeds because the lien wasn't against me. I sent the check back to the court because I didn't want to make the agreement that it was half my property and it was sold. Was I right in sending it back? And should I accept it now if it's proper? I'm not, I'm not sure. And like I said out at the beginning, uh, I am way underqualified to answer a lot of these questions. But if I had to make a decision, what I would do is take that check and endorse it with your name, and I would state that you are not waiving any rights in accepting that check. That you are pres, I sent it back. And I went back to, and that was in '98, I believe, because I think that you can sign it, you can endorse it, all rights reserved. You're not intending to waive any right. You can, you want to keep your rights. You want that money because that is actually a prepayment to what a judgment may be. But I believe that you would protect if you s, if you, I still go back after them on all these things. Sure. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Say, you know, thanks for the money, but by the way, I'm reserving all my rights. That might help. Thank you. I'm from Kansas, and this is a tax question, uh, regarding the fact if you can cut off some of their tax money, found them to a halt. And these, uh, particularly on property taxes, these tax notices that go out in Kansas, there's no dollar sign on them. Okay. It's, uh, so many units of something. And of course, people go in and they, um, pay dollars. Okay. But there's no contract there to pay, uh, dollars, or kernels of wheat, or sand, or whatever. Uh-huh. And, um, then if you don't pay, then, uh, you're a year behind. Then they turn around and sell this to the sheriff. The county treasurer sells this tax lien to the sheriff, and they convert it, uh, to dollars on that deal. But they still, uh, even when it's paid, it's only paid in, uh, uh, whatever units. They don't put it all there. And then they sign that as having the taxes paid. And it would seem to me that this is, you know, out and out fraud. And there ought to be a way that, uh, we could go after the county treasurer for committing fraud. And

And the sheriff, okay? Because they're conspiring, uh, to convert something that a bill that was issued, that was never issued, in a dollar amount. And, and here they convert it to a dollar amount. They also say it's paid. They don't accept it in a dollar amount. Yeah, I think it's a great case to, uh, to litigate the question, to get it up to the Supreme Court, to get a decision. I think before you, uh, take the action, you're going to have to, um, compel them to tell you what can you ask for or demand as payment for this obligation. That's the, that's the core question because you want them to define what, what these units are. And it may be true that when that authority was established, they didn't define it on purpose because as our monetary system changes, then it's readily adaptable to whatever people think. But what I would do is figure out a way to, to contact probably your Attorney General and ask for an Attorney General's opinion. And if the Attorney General won't, you can actually, uh, you can actually go to a federal court for an advisory opinion. You can actually file a case in federal court. And the, the question is, tell me what you can ask or demand as payment for this obligation. Tell me exactly what you can ask or demand. If you have that, then you have a basis to litigate the claim. Okay.

And we have one other thing. In Kansas, there is a, a law, 16-111, that was taken from 1893, but it's there on the statute books today. And, um, it says for all executions and judgments and so forth, that, uh, those will be made in, uh, United States legal tender or gold and silver, and no contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, this is law in Kansas, and it would go back to this tax thing. MH. Uh, how would you, uh, use that in terms of formulating what you're talking about? Because, uh, they didn't ask for any money. The law says this is the way it is. So why is there any obligation there, uh, on anyone, uh, you know, to, uh, uh, pay anything, you know? Well, you don't know what you're being asked to pay. You don't have a definition of it. And you'd handle it the same way. Here in Oklahoma, it's, uh, it, the, the money, it has to be in lawful money. Has to be lawful money. But they don't tell you what lawful money is. Well, in our case, they do. See? Yeah. But, uh, what, what they do. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. Or silver. Or, but again, you have to start with some court that will make a ruling and determination of what that, what that actually must be. Is, is that the only thing that can be asked or demanded in payment of this type of obligation? And when you have that court's advisory opinion, then you have a basis for an action and you have a chance to really make some law. But that, that's how I would do it. Is I would go to this, to the Attorney General first and say, tell me what can be asked or demanded, or tell me what can be paid, if, if anything, but this, in satisfaction of this judgment. And if they don't answer, go into federal court for an advisory opinion. Okay. You have any questions there?

My name is Bruce Gore. Uh, there's a group in, uh, in Florida, and they are, uh, involved in the right to travel. Now, they make the connection, uh, as an example, on the driver's license. M. Uh, and on the insurance, and on the, uh, registration of the car. Now, they show, when they take the police officer up there and asking questions, they say, "Can I, can I force you to have a driver's license, officer?" And he says, "No." He says, "Now, if I can't force you, you can't force me." Then how come we have a driver's license? And the question being, is that the legislators who created the fourth branch of government, which is the motor vehicle department, whatever they call, what I mean, whatever they call them, uh, are able to go in and make these laws and say these are laws when they are not laws, and they can't connect it with the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. But they get away with it because they say it's a law. And pretty soon, it's like, uh, Bob said, they get the presumption, and everybody presumes and say, "Take, take the bull by the horn that they can do whatever they want to do to us." Now, what I want to ask you is this, since they've already got it all worked out there, I would like to not take it individually because I don't, I don't think you could do enough of it, you know, to go up, win your case, and so you're sovereign, one, and they don't bother you, you know, that happens. But how would we go to the, the annotated, as an example, and go there and get the, the material we need to show that they never had the right to do any of those things? They'd be proving negative. And what, and how you approach that is, that's an issue of first impression. And this is an issue of first impression, means that the United, that the Supreme Court has not made a ruling determination. Well, let me, let me say, I got, I got 26 pages. The gentleman's gone. I got 26 pages of all these law, all these law cases, Supreme Court saying that no state entity can force you to have, force insurance, proof of registration, or a driver's license. Now I've got all these question cases, like what you use. M. Now, how would I take that to say, uh, in the state of Oklahoma, get everybody involved, realizing that we lost our freedoms, and they can stop anytime they want to and do anything they want to do because they're out of shape and they presume all these, all these things? Do you think the annotated, these books, we'd find all these laws in here to be able to go and attack this issue? How you have to do it is on the defensive. You have to wait until they arrest you, charge you driving without a license, then you support your argument and you take it up to the Supreme Court and get a Supreme Court's determination on it. Well, we've already got those in these laws already. Well, no, no, no, no, no. You need it in your case. You need to see if you can replicate those laws on your own behalf.

Well, okay, going back to your words again, if you knew that there was a law being violated, MH, a law being violated, and it was actually treason, in which it is, uh, aren't you supposed to, uh, to, uh, uh, report that? Um, you see where I'm going at? Yeah. You can, you can report it, particularly if you're the victim. The, the question there is, if you know that there is a crime or a pattern of crime, do you have an obligation to report that? And you do, because if you don't, you stand those crimes. Um, but as far as, as far as what I believe your question is, Bruce, you're going to have to have somebody that's arrested for driving without a license actually litigate their claim based on those authorities through the, through the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and they will get relief either based on those or because the Supreme Court makes new laws. All right, let me say it this way. We probably look, we'd have any problems finding people who, who, who are driving either suspended driver's license or whatever, that have actually take them and made them, uh, where they can be robbed and plundered all day long because they really, when they take them down there, they gone back to law again. If it was not a law, and know, if it was not a crime, I mean, to drive a car before, why is it a crime now? See, that's the law. The law says you can't make something that was not a crime, a crime. You follow my, my, uh, thoughts? Yeah. There has to be, there has to be an authority for charging with the crime. Okay. Don, if we can follow that pattern, why couldn't we go into and bring that all up? That's what I'm saying. Into where? Into the legislature? Because that's where, see, they didn't do it. They basically, they created this fourth branch of government, and then the fourth branch of government starts making their little deals, and their little tyrants get in there, and they all think this is their kingdom. We know that the, uh, the legislature is not your venue. They're not where you go to perfect your rights. But they're the ones that's allowing it to go on, and they're trustees. They're supposed to be. Well, they claim we are lawmakers. You've got to take it to the courts. Spre. And then what? Well, they're going to find it frivolous. Okay. Well, would that be, I mean, on this driver's license comment? Are, here's the best place to comment. I haven't had a driver's license since '84. MH. And of course, huh? Oh, okay. Well, I haven't had a driver's license since 1984. And of course, we've had our hassles. But I look at this driver's license thing. If I, if I apply for a driver's license, I have entered into a contract with the state to be ruled and regulated. Is that right or not right? It sounds reasonable. But here's the thing that we, as Patriots, friends of Patriots, sympathizers with Patriots, need to remember is, don't use all your energy fighting a battle if you lose the war. And, uh, I was asked last night, if I file a tax return, and I do. Do I do that because I think I have to or need to or whatever? No. I only do it for one reason. I'm afraid of what they will do to me as a person with substantial property interests if I don't. I do it purely out of fear. Now, I agree and have even in pleadings embraced all of the arguments, the arguments that you see in the, uh, Project Toto. But yet, I don't want to subject myself to the, the wrath of these evildoers. So I file the tax return. In, um, the annotated code, I think we were discussing this earlier. You were voicing the opinion that the state can't be a damaged party, not without a, a, um, qualified witness. And, uh, so many times, I think in all the different millions of, uh, charges and cases that go through the courts, this is, this seems to be one focal point that perhaps we could have some effect in that area, bringing this issue up. Or a recent issue, because the state is, is representing itself as a damaged party. Yeah. In, in my opinion, the state cannot, particularly over the past eight years, the so-called Department of Justice has gone completely haywire with, uh, everything from, uh, Waco as a perfect example of it. Who did those people hurt? They just didn't like them. They just didn't like. They fabricated. They fabricated to get the warrant. They didn't have jurisdiction to issue the warrant. But in our examination, and when I say our, our government's examination of it, they talk about who fired the first shot, and what actually caused the fire. That's not important to me. What's important to me is to ask the question, why were they there in the first place? In fact, fabricate evidence. Those are the questions that the people in positions of authority are avoiding. They keep talking about who fired the first shot, who actually set, you know, I don't care. To me, that's irrelevant. I want to know why they were there. And unless I, as a citizen, went to them and said, you know, they've got guns over that compound, and every time I drive by it, they take pot shots at me, I'm a witness. Now I'm complaining. Now that gives them the authority to get a warrant based on my witness and go there. So yes, it is a terrible problem because you have government posing itself as a victim on behalf of whoever, I don't know. And who has been hurt? Who's been hurt? The little people. Yeah.

My turn. Yes. Okay. I had a comment for the travel guy. One is the very first case that dealt with driving versus, uh, um, whatever the guys set up their case. Uh, they set up their case. They stipulated to all kinds of stuff that weren't true. Now, what he said was, you set your case up. I'm working with Pat Patton, trying to set up a case. The same with Parks, when she did her deal with the equal, or the affirmative action, I can't remember what it was, where she was on the bus. They set that case up. If we want to win cases, we've got to set them up ourselves so that all of the facts support us. And I think that's what you were saying earlier. Exactly. Exactly. You've got to empower that court to make the decision that you want to make for you. Okay. Now, I got three questions. One, if, if a person were to fail to appear, the judge issues a summary judgment. Could that person later attack that judgment as void? Absolutely. Absolutely. Unless they've got that fourth leg on there. They've got to have, they've got to have the jurisdiction because it's just like the surgeon operating. There's got to be the tumor there to remove. Okay. Otherwise, it would be a fraud on its face. Okay. These, these next two deal with me personally. IRS agents act outside of their authority. MH. I take them to state court. The state, the US District Attorney, I assume, would then try and get it into federal court. Do you know of a way to, uh, put your pleadings in so that you can prevent that, or is there a way? I don't have, uh, specific experience with that, but I know that the United States Supreme Court made a decision in the fall of, uh, 19, I believe it was, fall of '98. And what they, in effect, said was that no person who acts outside the scope of their authority is entitled to representation or compensation for judgment or any help whatsoever. You're out there on your own. If you work for the government, get the rules, follow the rules. Don't follow the rules, it's not the government's problem, it's your problem as a person. That's a Supreme Court case. I'm sorry that I don't know the name of it, but it's a, it's a recent case and it's good authority that would be in your pleadings. Oh, absolutely. You plead according. You plead that. You plead that case as your authority to proceed. All right. The last question was on a summary judgment for a 2039 summons to get books and records. I had a case where the US attorney got up, talked to the judge, the IRS agent entered a declaration. I never had the chance to cross-examine. I told my side of the story. The other attorney told his side of the story. As far as I could tell, about you're saying no evidence was entered on their part, yet they, they, uh, ruled against me. Is my best option to then file a new case? You said collaterally attack in the federal court. In the, in the federal. You have to do it by motion. It's, I think it's a 60E. But I would definitely do that. And you can actually rely on Vern Holland's recent case where the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled for the little people. And they said, okay, the IRS said that this person owed this, but they didn't put any supporting documents on the record in the form of evidence. There were no witnesses. There was nothing to show that this person was actually involved in this taxable, um, activity. And, and they have to meet minimum evidentiary standards to actually establish a tax obligation. That was posted, um, by Dan Met. Yeah, I read it. That's, that's the case that you want to rely on, not because it's exactly like yours, because it's similar enough because it involves the same core issue. When the IRS took that person's property, they did it without first establishing that that person was a taxpayer owing a tax. Because they can't just say, you owe a tax, we're going to take your property to pay it. They had to prove it, and they didn't do that. In my opinion, that case is one, even though it was only remanded for further action, because if they come with evidence now, oh, that they withheld that, they withheld that in the first round. So there's no, they have no evidence. They have no way to prove that that was a valid taking. A 60 motion would not get it before a new judge. No, it wouldn't. Okay, because I filed a 60 motion and he denied it. So then I had to appeal. Okay. And is it, is it an appeal now? Still an appeal right now. Okay. That's just the route. That's the route that you have to take. But, um, uh, if you haven't amended your appeal brief, I would do so. And I would actually cite that case. Oh, I can still amend it because the time limits are all done for filing the paperwork. I'd amend it. Let the other side strike it if they can.

Richard, you've talked about evidence and affidavits. You've talked about evidence. And as far as affidavits, could you explain a little bit? I think there's like three, three areas that enter evidence into the. There are three ways to, uh, to testify: an affidavit, a deposition, or appearing and testifying under, under oath on a record. Those are the three ways that you testify. Testimony, uh, by affidavit or deposition can be challenged. So that's where the other side, if they have sense enough to file an affidavit, which they usually don't, you want to subpoena that witness and question them under oath and on the record. But, uh, if you see somebody that does their paperwork right, and it's unusual, but if they do their paperwork right, they're going to win. It's just that they usually don't do it right. So if you were investigating a judgment or summary judgment, you would be looking for an affidavit as part of that file or a deposition. Yeah. If you look in that file, and there's no affidavit, no deposition, and nobody appeared and testified on the record, that's a void because, because there was not a competent witness.

Then secondly, what can I be found in contempt of in a court arena? Okay. What, what makes contempt? I believe that the Supreme Court has, has determined that there are three summary contempts. Now, you can be, you can be found in contempt for any number of things, but it's that summary contempt that is the, uh, the great hazard of entering a courtroom. And that's where the judge says, "I'm going to send you to jail." The Supreme Court has ruled that there are three summary contempts where the judge can say, "Okay, you had to go to jail without benefit of counsel and without benefit of trial." And that's disobedience by an officer of the court. So, in other words, if the court orders you to do something, you better do it, because if you don't follow court order, they'll be found in summary contempt. Another is, um, obstreperous behavior before a jury trial. So if there's a jury trial going on and you do something to disrupt that jury trial, that judge has to jail. The other is where you have agreed to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and then you refuse to testify. Judge can send you right to jail for that. Do not pass go. But those are the only three things. It's a Hollywood notion, misconception, that that judge can lawfully put you in jail if you, if, if the judge doesn't like you or you act or any other reason. Those are the only things that they can put you directly in jail for. Texas judges think they're from Hollywood. They, they do that all over. But I'm here to tell you, and as we discovered in these pleadings of real cases, the tide is turning. It's just turning a little slowly, but it is turning. The more the information gets out, the more people are empowered to act, the more it will turn. But, um, there's an actual case, case, and I'll apologize in advance, but there was an actual case, I believe it was in California, where a man stood in a hearing and said to the judge, "You son of a judge." Put him in jail. Went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said, "No, you know, don't do that. I mean, you're an adult. If, if somebody can call you a name and ruin your day, that's your problem. Don't put people in jail for that anymore." Excuse me. Heile, inter appe to get out jail was being, or was he in jail time? I don't know the details. He probably was not in jail all that time because, among other things, he could bond out. Yeah. I really don't have any, uh, questions to ask, but I, the lady, uh, that, uh, brought up the driver's license point, caused me to think that possibly I might have some information that would be interesting to you people who are who are into that movement of driver's license. At www.psas.org, you can buy insurance, uh, which does not require a driver's license. They will insure you no matter whether you have a driver's license or not. Uh, it's also a patriot type insurance company. It's a religious organization. And so what you do is you buy a membership, and then you pay so much for your car. I'm not going to go into all the details because it's all there on the website for you to see. And then you're assessed, uh, the whole pool of members, which is around 10,000 members right now, is assessed on a quarterly basis for the damages that the pool has sustained. So, uh, uh, I just gotten into it myself. My, my son just turned 18 years of age, and of course, you all know what the insurance, uh, it comes to for a kid 18 years of age. He's paying about $23 a month for full coverage insurance on an '89 Honda. So, you know, it's a great bargain to start off with. There are some people here that are, besides myself, that are also into that. And so I think Debbie back there is into it. She knows all about it. And there's some more around here that know every bit about as much as I do, and some more. But there's also another side issue to that, and that is this, when the cop stops you, you got no driver's license, then you got no insurance in his eyes, and he hauls you to jail for that. I think you'll have some fun with it. What's the website again? Www.psas.org. Has anyone been to court, you know of, with using that? I do not have any of that information. No, but I do know it's, it's valid, uh, in, in the, in the several, any of the states. It's valid insurance in all states. So, thanks Richard.

Excuse me, if, uh, if you may have covered this and I missed it, but, uh, and fortunately, it's been a long time since I've had any dealings with the court. But the last time I did, I was told that if I showed up at court without an attorney, that I would be arrested. You know, that I could not. This was in Oklahoma County. And I could not represent myself. I would go to jail. Yeah. Uh, there's still a lot of that going around. People that are acquainted with the judge's organization, it's not for your benefit, but, you know, there is an initiative called "Jail for Judges." And even, even though the tide is turning, there's still a lot of misconduct. But there's probably always going to be misconduct until there's judicial accountability. Now, we do have the Oklahoma form of that initiative on the table. By back there, and would invite you to pick up a copy of that. Because until judges that do things like that are taken before a jury of ordinary people who are not lawyers and not judges, and get their chance to understand real justice, that's going to go on. Yeah.

Richard, I'm getting back to, uh, these void judgments. How do we go through our cases to pick out things that, you know, to get some kind of an idea whether we had some void judgments? And like, I think one time you're mentioning certain criteria has to be met before a valid complaint can be filed and to give the court jurisdiction. What you want to do is look in that file and see if there is an affidavit, a deposition, or a minute record where somebody was testifying in court before a court reporter. If there are none of those things in there, then that's how you begin to launch an attack. But also at the same time, you look for rules that were not followed. Just like the Arizona case. This was a joint several liability judgment that it was abolished in Arizona. So what you do is you look for everything that was procedurally wrong, every jurisdictional failing, and then you sue them.

What about, like, if they come to court and bringing, see, on copies or copies of some promissory note, or copies of trying to get a quiet title, copies of different stuff? I think you mentioned something, originals had to be there. Well, uh, not only the originals have to be there, but there has to be a witness to testify as to their meaning. If there was never any witness, they were never before the court. If you have access to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, look at Rule 7H. And Rule 7H is actually the basis for state rules that are almost universal. That averments of fact which appear only in pleadings are not before the court. So it doesn't matter how high they stack that if it's only an attorney submitting that, it's not before the court for the court's consideration. Federal Rule 7H. And you're saying if a complaint is filed by an attorney and not the actual complainant, it's not a, it's not a case at that point? Not a case. It's not a case at that point. And it never will be a case until a witness appears. Without that witness appearing, it never became a case. Remember the law didn't we read that law? We read that law. We know that that's a law because we know where we got it from.

Want to make mention about that PSA ASL, the insurance. I've been a member of that organization for five years. I have two teenage sons. And when you look at the insurance costs with conventional insurance, it is astronomical, especially when you have an accident. My son had an accident, and believe it or not, he ran into an attorney's wife or husband. But this PSA ASL, it does meet the Oklahoma Financial Responsibility Act. And the damage that my son did to the other car was $8,000. And the organization paid off on it. It's $250 a year or for each. Well, it's only $250 for your vehicle, the lifetime that you own the vehicle. And then it's $500, uh, bucks a year. No, just $500 bucks period for a lifetime membership. So it's really a good deal. And, and they do pay off. And it's a way we can help each other across the nation and get ourselves out of this, hopefully, this Babylonian ripoff. And, uh, judges will appreciate that nice advertising contribution from that organization. Another question. Let's have another question. Let's talk about something. Let's insult lawyers or judges. Let's do something. Well, did you hear about the lawyer who, um, when you were talking about, um, determining whether a case has been reversed or not, were you talking about the process of Shepherization? Is that the process that you use? Yeah, you can do that. There's even, um, the Key West Digest is another good place to go. But as you're looking in the state annotated, Shepherization is always a good idea. But the state annotated effectively does the Shepherization for you because if you look in the annotated and if you look in the addendum to the annotated, you learn whether or not the Supreme Court has decided that that's not going to be the law anymore. Jeopardizing is, don't make it any longer than it has to be. You see these long, long pleadings like, uh, like this thing here. There's no point in repeating yourself if you've already made a point in law. Nobody should expect any judge to read a long brief. How would you like to be a judge? This about close as I get to ever being sympathetic with judgment. How'd you like to be a judge and spend your Friday afternoon looking at a stack of briefs that tall? I don't care if you're F. Lee Bailey, they're not going to read that stuff. They might get a clerk to kind of glance at it to see if there's something in there, but I don't believe that any judge religiously reads those 300-page briefs. Most judges that know their stuff, and this is true even in Oklahoma County, which is not exactly the bastion of justice in the world, will, will chastise attorneys for filing briefs that are too long. They, I've heard, "Hey, hey buddy, 30 pages. This is 60 pages. I'm tossing this. You refile it." But the point I wanted to make there is, there's no point in being overly long. Once you have stated a point in law and supported it with authority. If, uh, if you file a, and, uh, and win a void judgment, can that be refiled by the opposing party? No. It, uh, relies on the, uh, statute of limitations. A void judgment is not a nunc pro tunc. There are actions that are nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc means that you go back to the date before the judgment and you pull it forward to the date. This one would be a nunc pro tunc because it's not actually vacating a judgment, it's vacating a summary judgment. So they can go back to the day before that summary judgment. Now, then, if the judgment is vacated, if it is a judgment that's vacated, it's the statute of limitations. And that's one of the things that you can really use powerfully because the statute of limitations may have run out. You get it vacated, you're, that's a done deal. You never have to worry about that again. It's done. It's dead. They should have done it right the first time. It's not your problem. So I guess one strategy would be to wait until the statute of limitations has run out and file your void. Yeah. Which, which in a case of a, which in a case of a personal injury is two years in Oklahoma. Let's see. And then my last question was, uh, you use a lot of, uh, federal and non-Oklahoma sites in your cases. Um, is that kosher? I mean, do we have any problem with those being accepted by the Oklahoma courts? Uh, no. Actually, in the, in the case of the federal, I think the principle is called comity. Anytime you can cite a federal authority, particularly if it's a federal authority that's determined in your circuit, it's, it's reliable. But even if it's a site from another state, if it's a persuasive or a compelling argument, why not throw it in? Because you may be making some new law. I expect at some point in time that there's going to be publication on something that I've done. And your purpose is to persuade. Now, you do want to go with your authority for that court to act. And if you come in court in Oklahoma and you cite a Kentucky statute as your reason for being there, you haven't stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. But if you state your Oklahoma authority to be there, and then collaterally mention this interesting case in Kentucky that really is very similar to this, and here's what that court decided, that can be persuasive to the court.

Richard, not so long ago, I went to the county clerk's office to see what might be filed. And I had no notice of this instrument, but it was called an abstract of judgment. Would you care to elaborate on that? S. I'd never seen one before, and it had a 20-year lifespan. I don't know. I, I wish I could, Don. I'd have to research it because it's, it's a pretty strange animal because in Oklahoma, judgments have a five-year life. If they're not perfected within five years, they're latched. And so if you get a judgment against somebody and you haven't perfected in five years, you better beat it down to the courthouse and refile it because it's going to be latched. As far as that, I would suggest that you check that out at the law library and see if you can run it down because that sounds like somebody's imagination that spent a lot of time reading about Roe v. Wade and never learned anything about procedure.

The question I have is, is a trust the same as a person, or is it the same as a corporation as far as damaged in a court case? Well, I think a trust can be damaged, um, and does have standing, but only through an authorized representative. And you see the same way through a corporation. Who's the officer here? Who's the representative party that actually will will suffer the damage? And if you're a beneficiary of a trust and you're suffering damage, even though it may be damage that may not occur for many years, then in my opinion, you're the damaged party. But, but the trust itself wouldn't be damaged. It would be a damage to to that individual. If, for instance, the trust owns a piece of property, and in a court proceeding they back it around and claim that an individual becomes liable, so they transfer the assets of a trust into an individual to claim a judgment against that individual. They transfer the assets into the name of an individual. They avoid the trust. Right. They avoid the trust, but in the name of an individual. Sounds like a great opportunity to make some law because, um, uh, trusts are something that I would not claim to be an expert on, but I believe that if you have put a spendthrift clause in that trust, they can't do that. And that's the key to it. And see, a lot of these things, it's just a few, few little words here or there that make all the difference in the world. And I think if that clause, if that trust had a spendthrift clause in it, they can't do that. And, um, the reason for that is there are certain protections that go to a higher level. And the spendthrift clause is intended to protect the beneficiaries of the trust. But if there's no spendthrift clause in there, then it does not give the court a reason to believe that it was actually constructed to protect beneficiaries. And I think that that's what you need to look for to see if it has a spendthrift clause in it.

I've kind of hesitated to come forth to ask this question because it's, uh, kind of, I don't really have it well formulated myself. But, um, we recently, with this, is all very new, a summary judgment that it would appear is void in law. And I'm wondering who to sue, exactly, in this particular case. We notified the judge before he, uh, even, um, got started that he had no oath, or could he prove that he was lawfully elected? We have that situation where he went ahead and made the judgment without any response. We didn't appear in the court because we didn't feel like there was really an action to come forth. But we put an affidavit in. I think my question is, we would, we think we would sue the party that brought the action forth. But can you split the cause of action and sue the judge separately in one case, then, and regarding this one case, and then sue the, uh, plaintiff? This was a quiet title action without any, they tried to quiet title without any proof of ownership. So who can you sue? Split an action in that sort of thing, or when you, does it have to all stay together, and you have to try to present two causes of action in this one? How I, how I would do that is, you, you sue the beneficiary of the judgment for relief of the void judgment. You sue the judge under 4218 for acting in clear absence of all jurisdiction. The beauty of that is anytime you're in a civil rights venue, you don't have to prove a single dollar worth of damage. Damages are totally nominal in civil rights. It's whatever jury will give you. And what's 42? That's your federal title where you actually sue for conspiracy against rights, and you have a, you have a 14th Amendment right not to be deprived of money or property without due process of law. And I don't see any due process there. It's a mockery of due process. But that's not called a splitting of action, then? Well, because I've heard, I don't know this much about all this stuff, but I've heard you can't, uh, split an or split an action. Is that right? No, you can split them all over the place. Look at Treny versus Pagliaro. Treny versus Pagliaro does collaterally cite another point of law. It's very important that you can sue over the very same action in different courts as long as you can establish that other court's authority to act. You can sue all over the place. But in that case, you sue it, you have to, to split it unless you can prove that that judge was actually acting in concert with that party. And I don't think appearance is enough. My case then goes to federal court. Whether state, you have two cases. One against the judge for violation. MH. You take him into the fed.

Okay. I have a question, which is the same thing, because that's my wife asking. And, um, but it involves, uh, this judge and the clerk of court not having an oath as required by law. This judge, uh, appointed this clerk in 1986, and she never had an oath on file as required by the Kansas law. And that's a felony. And this judge, or this clerk, then, three years ago, swore this judge into office. Okay. And so we noticed them by affidavit within the case. And this judge went ahead and found default. We never went because they're in the court there, as she pointed out. But by default, went ahead and quieted title. And also, as Paula pointed out, there was never anything in the original petition to ever show, uh, uh, that they had ownership. All they did was state they had ownership, but they had no documentation, no affidavit, no nothing. The petition was dead on its face. And we also filed that in affidavit form into this case. But the point is, can we come back against this clerk? I was thinking it would be easier against the clerk than against the judge. And, uh, file a collateral action to sue her because she's not there. Oh, very definitely. Very so. But can we, how do we do that in the court where she claims to be clerk, when there's no clerk to take? You don't sue her in the court. You sue her. Sue her in the federal. Sue her in federal too. But you sue, you sue in that court for relief of that judgment. And it sounds like it's a good. I think there's two points of power here, and that's the clerk and the sheriff for law enforcement to enforce whatever judgments come out. So if you can destroy the clerk or take the jurisdiction away from the sheriff, or whoever, then you've stopped all their actions. Anything that shows a jurisdictional failing is sufficient to do that.

Well, unfortunately, I think we're done as our time is about to run out. I really appreciate, uh, this opportunity. Uh, I hope you take something away from the meeting that can help you, maybe inspire you, give you a chance to win. We're kind of all in this together. That's us against a corrupt establishment. And how do we get your help? Do you have my card with my name, phone number, and email address? Call me or email me and tell me the circumstances, and I'll look at your case, and we'll discuss it from there. Send complaints or something like that. Excuse me. Complaints? You to, what I'd actually have to have is, is the file. File, not necessarily the file, exclusive of those tons of paperwork. I am interested in files to the extent that we can show a failing like no affidavit, no witness. Okay. That gives you your open door to take that thing out, get rid of it, get your damages back from them. It happens. Thank you, Rich. I'd like to make a quick little statement. Part, I'm at the, uh, rules of having this room because they've asked us to restack the chairs, also pick up any trash that might be around your chair. They'll help us clean up so we can check out when we're through. So just do a little bit. App. Thanks a lot. Chairs.